Why is batman always black in the films?

[Christopher]

John Stewart isn't the same thing as making Hal Jordan a black guy though.

I'd say that in a way, it is the same thing. John is essentially an equivalent lead character who can easily play the same role as Hal, and he was pretty much created, and used in the animated Justice League, to fill the GL role in a way that would bring more diversity. GL has the edge that it's got the concept of multiple equal heroes built in, so it's easy to swap them out. If you're doing something like an adaptation of Superman, though, where you've got a pretty fixed core cast and don't already have a major nonwhite character in it, then it makes perfect sense to do something like casting Laurence Fishburne as Perry White. It's different, yes, but that doesn't make it any less valid an option. (Heck, isn't the whole point of this that there's nothing wrong with being different?)

As Greg pointed out, the problem is that we're dealing with casts of characters who were created decades ago and reflected the segregation of that era. If you're making a version of Superman set in the '40s, then it's plausible that the Daily Planet would have an overwhelmingly white staff. If you're making a version set in the 2010s, however, that's as huge an anachronism as having Clark wear a fedora and change in a phone booth. It just doesn't make sense in a modern setting, because the world doesn't look like that or work like that anymore. So you change it. You update it just like you'd update any other old-fashioned elements.

In other words, if John Stewart had never been created, then casting a black actor as Hal Jordan would make perfect senst to me, if he were the right actor for the role.

And don't forget-

Yes, wow, why didn't I think of that? Thank you for pointing that out. They figured all this out 44 years ago. So why are we still arguing about it now?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Eartha Kitt does help make this a moot argument.

 

[Sci]

They figured all this out 44 years ago. So why are we still arguing about it now?

Because a lot of people, even if they do not consciously think that white people should reign supreme, still feel that white people should reign supreme. And things that disrupt that feeling of the rightness of white supremacy feel threatening to them.

 

[Christopher]

Please, folks, we're managing to have a decent conversation that's mostly been free of namecalling, and that's very hard to do when discussing race. So let's try to avoid the personal accusations and keep our focus on the issues and ideas, okay?

 

[JoeZhang]

. When I want to see my favorite characters on screen, I want their resemblance of the characters I've come to know and love to be spot on. I want Batman to look like Batman, Cyclops to look like Cyclops and Blade to look like Blade.

A British guy with a cockney accent in a green mac and a huge pair of goggles?

 

[Greg Cox]

They figured all this out 44 years ago. So why are we still arguing about it now?

Because a lot of people, even if they do not consciously think that white people should reign supreme, still feel that white people should reign supreme. And things that disrupt that feeling of the rightness of white supremacy feel threatening to them.

To be fair, while there may sometimes be a racist subtext to these sort of controversies (seriously, who gets that worked up about Heimdall, for Odin's sake?), we should allow for the fact that there are a lot of nitpicky, literal-minded fan purists who object to any deviation from original source material--as this board proves every day. I mean, look at the endless handwringing over Spidey's organic webshooters or whether Ant-Man and the Wasp should've been included in the first AVENGERS movie or all the "canon violations" in such-and-such Trek movie or episode.

So, yeah, I'm willing to concede that some people don't like changing a character's race just because "that's not how it was in the original comics!"

Which is an unconvincing argument, IMHO, but not necessarily a racist one.

 

[Admiral2]

To be fair, while there may sometimes be a racist subtext to these sort of controversies (seriously, who gets that worked up about Heimdall, for Odin's sake?), we should allow for the fact that there are a lot of nitpicky, literal-minded fan purists who object to any deviation from original source material--as this board proves every day. I mean, look at the endless handwringing over Spidey's organic webshooters or whether Ant-Man and the Wasp should've been included in the first AVENGERS movie or all the "canon violations" in such-and-such Trek movie or episode.

So, yeah, I'm willing to concede that some people don't like changing a character's race just because "that's not how it was in the original comics!"

Which is an unconvincing argument, IMHO, but not necessarily a racist one.

Unconvincing, huh?

Well, obviously I've been put in my place. What was I thinking? Now I'm just dying to see a new Pearl Harbor movie with Danny Glover playing Chester Nimitz, because Danny Glover's a great actor, and he'll make big box office, and we need to change the dynamic of the story, and we have a black president so it's about time.

 

[sidious618]

It worries me that we're now comparing real people to comic book characters.

 

[Sci]

To be fair, while there may sometimes be a racist subtext to these sort of controversies (seriously, who gets that worked up about Heimdall, for Odin's sake?), we should allow for the fact that there are a lot of nitpicky, literal-minded fan purists who object to any deviation from original source material--as this board proves every day. I mean, look at the endless handwringing over Spidey's organic webshooters or whether Ant-Man and the Wasp should've been included in the first AVENGERS movie or all the "canon violations" in such-and-such Trek movie or episode.

So, yeah, I'm willing to concede that some people don't like changing a character's race just because "that's not how it was in the original comics!"

Which is an unconvincing argument, IMHO, but not necessarily a racist one.

Unconvincing, huh?

Well, obviously I've been put in my place. What was I thinking? Now I'm just dying to see a new Pearl Harbor movie with Danny Glover playing Chester Nimitz, because Danny Glover's a great actor, and he'll make big box office, and we need to change the dynamic of the story, and we have a black president so it's about time.

Your argument would be more convincing if Peter Parker were an actual white person, rather than a fictional character commonly imagined as white.

 

[Christopher]

Your argument would be more convincing if Peter Parker were an actual white person, rather than a fictional character commonly imagined as white.

I think this is what Greg was talking about. Some people have trouble remembering the difference between fictional people and real ones -- or at least take the fictional ones just as seriously.

But even real historical figures are sometimes played by actors who don't resemble them physically, like Frank Langella playing Nixon in Frost/Nixon. Sometimes it helps to keep in mind that this isn't real, that these are just actors offering their interpretations of a role, and sometimes you can't take their appearance too literally. I once saw a stage production of Hamlet where the title character was played by a white actor but his biological uncle Claudius (who's Danish, and based on a real historical figure who was a king of Jutland) was played by a black actor. There was no dialogue added to explain this; we were just supposed to suspend disbelief, to focus on the characters being presented rather than the surface appearance of the actors -- in the same way that we were expected to look beyond the surface appearance of the stage and imagine it as a blasted heath, Elsinore Castle, a graveyard, and other locations as needed. People who take everything literally are often seriously impaired in their enjoyment of fiction.

 

[bullethead]

John Stewart isn't the same thing as making Hal Jordan a black guy though.

I'd say that in a way, it is the same thing. John is essentially an equivalent lead character who can easily play the same role as Hal, and he was pretty much created, and used in the animated Justice League, to fill the GL role in a way that would bring more diversity. GL has the edge that it's got the concept of multiple equal heroes built in, so it's easy to swap them out. If you're doing something like an adaptation of Superman, though, where you've got a pretty fixed core cast and don't already have a major nonwhite character in it, then it makes perfect sense to do something like casting Laurence Fishburne as Perry White. It's different, yes, but that doesn't make it any less valid an option. (Heck, isn't the whole point of this that there's nothing wrong with being different?)

As Greg pointed out, the problem is that we're dealing with casts of characters who were created decades ago and reflected the segregation of that era. If you're making a version of Superman set in the '40s, then it's plausible that the Daily Planet would have an overwhelmingly white staff. If you're making a version set in the 2010s, however, that's as huge an anachronism as having Clark wear a fedora and change in a phone booth. It just doesn't make sense in a modern setting, because the world doesn't look like that or work like that anymore. So you change it. You update it just like you'd update any other old-fashioned elements.

In other words, if John Stewart had never been created, then casting a black actor as Hal Jordan would make perfect senst to me, if he were the right actor for the role.

Uh, John Stewart was created back in the 70s in the actual Green Lantern comics and chosen for the JL cartoon, probably for the diversity reason in both cases.

 

[Greg Cox]

Unconvincing, huh?

Well, obviously I've been put in my place. What was I thinking? Now I'm just dying to see a new Pearl Harbor movie with Danny Glover playing Chester Nimitz, because Danny Glover's a great actor, and he'll make big box office, and we need to change the dynamic of the story, and we have a black president so it's about time.

Your argument would be more convincing if Peter Parker were an actual white person, rather than a fictional character commonly imagined as white.

Exactly. We weren't talking about actual historic personages here. We're talking about imaginary comic book characters made out of paper and ink. Nobody suggested casting Will Smith as Napoleon or whatever.

Granted, even with historical figures, it depends on what kind of project it is. One expects scrupulous historical accuracy in something like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or MAD MEN. On an episode of XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS or a Monty Python movie, not so much.

I mean, Guenevere's played by a black actress on MERLIN, but nobody cares because that show doesn't purport to be a realistic historical costume drama--or even a faithful literary adaption of the early Arthurian legends. It's a teen-oriented, fantasy-adventure series set in a "medieval" Britain that bears no resemblance to actual history. Which is fine for its purposes.

(The same reasoning applies to musicals and operas, IMHO. In real life, people don't spontaneously break out into song and dance routine, so you're dealing with an overtly artificial, theatrical "reality" to begin with . . . where Annie or The Music Man or King Arthur could be played by actors of any background.)

P.S. Christopher: I know what you mean about Shakespeare. I once saw James Earl Jones do King Lear. Worked for me.

 

[Kegg]

^
Shakespeare is an apt comparison because Branagh's background is in Shakespeare where that kind of casting is common.

Well, obviously I've been put in my place. What was I thinking? Now I'm just dying to see a new Pearl Harbor movie with Danny Glover playing Chester Nimitz,

Other people have pointed out the incongruity of your comparsion, so I'll just observe this:

Donald Glover was not cast as Spider-Man. The role went to a British actor whose name I don't recall, but who was pretty white.

This kind of ties in to what I said earlier - default white lead, minorities in supporting roles (Irrfan Khan playing some boss guy being the only example from that movie I recall offhand). Same market logic that made Heimdall black kept Spider-Man white.

And hey, Donald Glover is a funny guy with a lot of charisma. I liked him back in derrickcomedy, Mystery Team had its moments, and half the internet swears up and down that Community is rather good.

I'd see a movie with him in it, even a superhero movie, on purpose.

 

[EmoBorg]

I want a jewish superman who observes the sabbath. BTW many of the superheroes had jewish creators so it makes sense to have a major superhero as jewish as a tribute to the jewish contribution to the modern american pop culture.

 

[Greg Cox]

^
Shakespeare is an apt comparison because Branagh's background is in Shakespeare where that kind of casting is common.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Come to think of it, Branagh also cast Denzel Washington as the prince in his Much Ado About Nothing (with Keanu Reeves as his evil brother!) and I don't remember movie fans being bothered by that. Is it only comic book buffs that get worked up about these sort of liberties? That would argue against it being strictly a racial thing.

Branagh probably wondered what the fuss with Heimdall was about--assuming he paid any attention to a silly internet "controversy" at all.

Thinking about this some more: comic book movies and Shakespeare are similar in that they're both set in a heightened reality that isn't expected to mimic reality. People speak in iambic pentameter . . . or dress up like bats to fight crime. So they're allowed a bit more artistic license than, say, PEARL HARBOR . . . .

 

[sidious618]

There's a fascinating version of "Waiting for Godot" which is performed by an all black cast and takes place in New Orleans post-Katrina.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I want a jewish superman who observes the sabbath. BTW many of the superheroes had jewish creators so it makes sense to have a major superhero as jewish as a tribute to the jewish contribution to the modern american pop culture.

The Thing has been established as Jewish, IIRC. Though I doubt Lee and Kirby originally thought of him as Jewish.

 

[Kegg]

Is it only comic book buffs that get worked up about these sort of liberties? That would argue against it being strictly a racial thing.

Or differing attitudes towards racial choices from theatre fans to comic book fans, take your pick (I do remember when I last was in an argument about this on the TrekBBS, some time before Thor's release, there was a guy with a Confederate flag avatar dead set against Elba). Opera's also pretty colour-blind, in a manner that cuts all ways - black tenors in white roles, white tenors as Asians, et cetera.

Branagh probably wondered what the fuss with Heimdall was about--assuming he paid any attention to a silly internet "controversy" at all.

"Idris Elba is a fantastic actor - we were lucky to get him. He provides all the characteristics we need from Asgard's gatekeeper, the man who says, "Thou shalt not pass". When Idris Elba says that, you know you're gonna have a problem. He's smart, intelligent, handsome and an absolute joy to work with. If you have a chance to have a great actor in the part, everything else is irrelevant.

"If you're going to say the colour of his skin matters in a story like this, look at 50 years of Thor comics to see how many ways great artists have bent alleged 'rules'. Look at the Norse myths to see the way they confounded and contradicted themselves. That whole 'controversy' was a surprising - and daft - moment."

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=33979

Branagh is, of course, quite right - any production's lucky to get Elba.
​

 

[the G-man]

I want a jewish superman who observes the sabbath.

I don't think there are a lot of Jewish farmers in small town Kansas. Or on krypton for that matter.

 

[Greg Cox]

There's a fascinating version of "Waiting for Godot" which is performed by an all black cast and takes place in New Orleans post-Katrina.

I once saw a fun version of "A Midsummer's Night Dream" that switched the setting to a 1950s high school, complete with period rock songs.

Oberon's line about "Let us rock the ground on which these sleeper lies" took on a whole new meaning!

That's the thing, though. There's no reason why you have to do things exactly the way they've been done before, whether you're talking Hamlet or the Hulk!

Fictional characters are toys to be played with . . . .

(Talk about topic drift! We've gone from the color of Batman's uniform to Shakespeare and Beckett!)